|The Tax Publishers2020 TaxPub(DT) 5248 (Bang-Trib)
INCOME TAX ACT, 1961
Where AO, based on report of Investigation Wing, treated share application money received by assessee as unexplained credit under section 68 brushing aside documents furnished by assessee without any discussion and even without providing copy of report of Investigation Wing to assessee, issue was remanded back to AO for adjudication afresh by way of a speaking and reasoned order after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to assessee.
Income from undisclosed sources - Addition under section 68 - Receipt of share application money - AO brushed aside documents furnished by assessee without any discussion--Even investigation report being the basis for addition, not provided to assessee
AO, based on report of Investigation Wing, treated share application money received by assessee as unexplained credit under section 68. Assessee contended that it furnished several papers running into thousands of pages, including PAN of investors, copy of Share Application Forms and Ledger Accounts of Share Applicants but AO brushed aside all these documents by saying that confirmation letters and source of the share application money was not submitted. Held: Confirmation of some investors, bank statements of some investors, NBFC Certificate of some investors issued by RBI, etc., were very much submitted before AO and there was no finding of AO as to how the same were not relevant for examining and deciding the identity and creditworthiness of investors and genuineness of the transaction. Instead of brushing aside all documents without any discussion, AO should have discussed about the issue and documents brought on record by assessee as to how the same failed to establish identity, creditworthiness and genuineness. But, AO had not done so and therefore, it was not possible to examine correctness or otherwise of the conclusion drawn by AO in a summary manner. Even copy of report of Investigation Wing was also not provided to assessee to enable assessee to file reply. Hence, issue was remanded back to AO for adjudication afresh by way of a speaking and reasoned order after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to assessee.
FAVOUR : Matter remanded.
A.Y. : 2010-11 to 2013-14
IN THE ITAT, BANGALORE BENCH
A.K. GARODIA, A.M. & BEENA PILLAI, J.M.
B.B. Jewellers & Finance (P) Ltd. v. DCIT
ITA Nos. 1619 to 1623/Bang/2018
11 September, 2020
Assessee by: G. S. Prashanth, CA
Revenue by: Muzaffar Hussain, Commissioner (Departmental Representative) (ITAT), Bengaluru
SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT